Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs

From: RobIrving@aol.com
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:02:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:01:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:56:59 -0700> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>> From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com>> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs
Geoff,
> To my eyes, responsible "ufologists" routinely do more than cast> one suspiciously, they positively roll them with some frequency.
Before we start I feel I must point out that I of course would
never initiate the term 'responsible ufologists' -- it was rather
thrust upon me. Otherwise that's heartening to hear, but what is
the evidence?
> I can imagine some end-runs around these regrettable legal> protections -- mail bombs, dark-tinted Subarus and mysterious> disappearances, etc. -- but my gut feeling is that such things> would only fuel some of the ET cover-up paranoia out there.
Amusing... no, really.
[Re. Greer, Hesemann, Simms & Leir, etc]
> Such people never even use the term "ETH", in my experience.> They speak of ET reality, ET cover-ups, and alien implants. It> seems frankly bizarre and quite arbitrary to declare them the> representatives of the ETH. Some clearer use of terminology> might help here.
Good point. I concede it. However, the veracity with which others
have defended their cause in these discussions makes me think
that perhaps there are some who hide an inelastic stance behind
the 'H' word. Bruce and Stanton, for instance are known around
these parts as scientists, and Jerome and Greg like to talk in
terms of science, but I'm not sure I'd describe any of them as
models of impartiality.
It's a problem, people rarely are.
Rob